People, Politics & Protests IV

People, Politics and Protests IV Occupy College Street: Notes from the Sixties Ranabir Samaddar 2017 Occupy College Street: Notes from the Sixties ∗ Ranabir Samaddar Occupy College Street, 1966-69 Today, mainly in the West, occupy is the call of the radicals. Hundreds of articles, analyses, reports, and reflections have come out on Occupy Wall Street movement and other occupation movements elsewhere as in London. With the end of the occupation dismay has been also evident. Commentators have asked: whence did the tactic of occupation arise? How did rank and file democracy appear and survive at least for a while? And, why did occupation dissipate? What were the fruits of the movement? Have the gains lasted? Yet in these recollections of moments of exhilaration and subsequent dismay there is an untold belief that this was something new. As a tactic occupation mobilised hundreds, often thousands of participants. Its spatial dimension was unique in the history of protests. It had broken many boundaries. Against this background this note for a moment takes us back to the decade of the sixties of the last century in Kolkata when the insurgent movement in West Bengal had taken to occupation and had developed the tactic, which helped the movement to crystallize and caused ironically at the end the undoing of the mobilisation. Occupy as a tactic thus has a history and the radicals of today perhaps in their enthusiasm for the new left ethos have ignored the history of the insurgent tactics of the past – especially tactics developed in the postcolonial context. Once again it was the popular nature of a movement that had helped the new tactics to emerge. Take the tradition of gherao in West Bengal, which began in a strong way in the 1960s. Gherao means encirclement. It is a word originally from Hindi or Bengali or perhaps from some other Indian language, and denotes a tactic of labour activists in India. 1 It is like picketing. Usually, workers would keep a management boss, or a factory owner, or a management or government building under gherao until their demands would be met, or answers given. This tactic was advocated in a big way as a means of workers’ protest by Subodh Banerjee, the PWD and Labour Minister respectively in the 1967 and 1969 United Front Governments of West Bengal. Gherao s became the occasions when rebellious workers showed that they disagreed with the managers and bosses by standing or sitting around persons in authority and not letting them leave until they agreed to do what the protesting workers wanted. Gherao became the site of assembly of mass of workers picketing, sitting, slogan shouting, throwing questions at bosses, and waiting with courage or in trepidation, apprehension, or resignation for the police and the goons to appear any time, pounce upon them, and free the bosses. Jute, engineering, and tea industries witnessed at times violent encirclement protests by ∗ Researcher for MCRG-RLS Project on Social and Political Mapping of Popular Movements, Logistical Vision and Infrastructure. Email: [email protected] Policies and Practices, Issue No. 89, December 2017 workers. Police intervened to take out and thus rescue the persons under gherao . At times, encirclement continued overnight and for hours. Bombs were hurled on the picketers; goons were let loose on them. And the police was always on call. The tactic of gherao was deployed in jails also at that time, when jailed activists (for instance in Medinipur Central Jail in 1970) demanding improvement of living conditions and better treatment of prisoners by jail officers and warders stood their ground outside their wards and cells and refused lock up. The prisoners were mercilessly beaten, kicked, dragged inside, torched, maimed for life, and few eventually killed. Such incidents took place in other jails at that time. 2 Besides gherao, one more word became popular. It was abasthan , which would mean camping in, sit-in, picketing. Abasthan indicated flexibility in tactic. It could or could not have meant gherao . It could mean sit-in anywhere in support of a charter of demands. In this way East Esplanade became a place of sit-in demonstrations on various issues by various agitating groups. It could continue for days and nights. Yet it is a safer ploy, as it was cordoning or encircling anybody and preventing the freedom of movement. Sit-ins by teachers, tram workers, or groups of workers were familiar scenes in the mid-sixties in the city. Coming back to gherao, while gherao made the city of Kolkata infamous and became irretrievably associated with labour movement in West Bengal in the decades of sixties and seventies in the last century, and made the radical a figure of terror, the most noticeable use of this tactic was made by the rebellious students and youth of that time. Gherao s of principals of colleges became familiar incidents. Of course the famous case was the event of gherao of the Principal during the anti-expulsion movement in Presidency College, supported by the broad student community, in 1966-67. Before that happened the gherao of Eden Hindu Hostel in 1966, when the boarders of the Hostel went on hunger strike with their demands for improvement of the living conditions of the hostel; they picketed at the gate of the hostel for three days and nights, confining the superintendent of the hostel to his residence in the hostel building, eventually forcing him to resign. The gherao of the historic hostel established in 1886 shocked the educated middle classes of the city. Subsequently, the Principal of the Presidency College was gheraoed by the students with a charter of demands. The movement against the expulsion of radical students in September 1966 led the students to encamp in the college. The college was closed sine die and eventually opened after six months when the expelled students were accommodated in other colleges. The long closure of the college helped the students to stay put at the gates, inside, and in the locality. Gradually, this became a fine technique, which would mean rebellious students camping in the college at night, and the college running as usual during the day. The college lawn became the meeting ground for political discussions, strategy meetings, consultations. It was a rendezvous site, also a control room, where news of any attack on radical students or youth in any part of city would reach fast, support for comrades under attack would be mobilised, and help would be sent at Godspeed. In time, both in the college and the hostel, crude bombs (called peto ) and other handy tools for self- defence would be stored. After the dusk fell, the college lawn, the portico, and the corridors reverberated with animated discussions, exchanges of views, only to become silent as night progressed and weary, tired activists fell asleep. By morning the cadres would leave the precinct, the college would be returned to its due owners – students, teachers, administrative staff, police spies, etc. As evening approached, the students and youth activists had to be alert about informers and spies, the ever present possibility of police contingents suddenly landing in the college to pick up the wanted and other activists, and at night whispering voices of volunteers on duty were to awaken the occupiers to the marching sound of the boots of a police party ready to swoop down on unarmed youth and student activists. 2 Who camped in the college? During the day, the union room, the canteen, the corridors, were frequented by the rebellious students of the college with some outside delegates joining them. However as the day ended, the number of outsiders, comrades of other student and youth units would join. The college would become what is called today the “commons” of radical forces. Representatives of other units and unions, and curious participants joined the virtual camp. The college in this way would be occupied. While this narration of occupation of the Presidency College in 1966-68 has been probably recorded elsewhere and on more than one occasion, and the narration here is kept strictly limited to few lines, this should be enough however to tell us of the way space making went on as a vital part of a rebellious protest movement of that time.3 It is to that history of the occupation by students and youth who through their tactics were breaking old boundaries and creating new ones that the following lines are devoted. The heights to which an occupy movement can ascend and then fall are the lessons of this brief story. First, in order to secure the college the vicinity had to be secured. Thus students had to go out to the neighbourhoods, visit slums, shops, dens, and pits to befriend the populace and neutralise the potential attackers. The vanity of birth and education had to be left back. If students had to be welcomed in the neighbourhoods, the rough and plebeian denizens of the lower depths had to be also welcomed in the college. Friendship led to comradeship, comradeship broke boundaries of college and outside. The college became the common. It was secured in this way. Second, for the college to become an occupation camp of the students and other radical activists, links had to be forged with radical fraternities of other colleges, and equally importantly with other localities. Students had to be companions of youth. In this way, an “All Units” (units of students and youth organisations, and trade union solidarity platforms) was formed. The college precinct became the headquarters. Third, no potential enemy was to be allowed in the area or immediately beyond. Intense education, conscientisation, deliberation, visits, and unionisation – all these became the mode of neutralising threats of terror.

Load more